PDA

View Full Version : No whine here, but isn't the P-39 too easy now??



mortoma
11-20-2004, 03:58 PM
I was afraid of this. I was slightly disappointed when PF came out when I found the FM of the P-39s were only slightly more challenging than their Russian counterparts, if at all. In RL they were a handful and not an easy plane to fight in. Now after the patch, they are so easy to fly that if I were to attempt to teach my 11 year old niece to fly this sim, I'd start her in the P-39Ds or the P-400!! Just tried them in QMB against A6M5s and they were borderline Uber with no nasty traits to speak of. How many want the P-39 restored to it's historically difficult self?? They should not fly like the Russian version, they were a bit heavier. No whine, just concern for realism here. In QMB I do much better in P-39 now than with the Hellcat.............

Could they have really been this easy to master?? Opinions wanted, will not allow this post/thread to turn into a flame slugfest, will delete it if it does. Please be mature.

Mjollnir111675
11-20-2004, 04:00 PM
What exactly IS a P-39?

SilverWings25th
11-20-2004, 04:03 PM
Dont be incapable Mjollnir. I talked to a Tuskegee P39 pilot, he said the guys didnt like it. I suppose if we dont mind it or if we like it too much then its over done.

Another thing is the P39 pilots were too afraid to push their aircraft to its limits due to irrecoverable spins.

SW
www.VFA25.com (http://www.VFA25.com)
Recruiting NOW

Mjollnir111675
11-20-2004, 04:11 PM
Yes but did the vet say whether he was used to flyin the P-51? I could see him being very indifferent if that was the case.
Was there an aircraft switch?

muHamad-ALi
11-20-2004, 04:17 PM
The problem is not, in fact, with the p39, but rather, the fact, that all american aircraft are 'generously', or even, over, modeled. If one were to examine the amount of victories of the IJN and IJAAF aces and compare those victory counts to the aces of the USN, one would find that vastly superior pilots and planes were present on the side of the Japanese, despite the American nationalism (that is overwhelmingly present on these forums) and despite the outcome of the war.

Zyzbot
11-20-2004, 04:49 PM
And despite obvious trolling.

chris455
11-20-2004, 05:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by muHamad-ALi:
The problem is not, in fact, with the p39, but rather, the fact, that _all_ american aircraft are 'generously', or even, over, modeled. If one were to examine the amount of victories of the IJN and IJAAF aces and compare those victory counts to the aces of the USN, one would find that vastly superior pilots and planes were present on the side of the Japanese, despite the American nationalism (that is overwhelmingly present on these forums) and despite the outcome of the war. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Every time you post, you make your anti-American sentiments more manifest.

If you compare the average number of kills divided by time in theater, allied pilots win hands down in nearly every case. Most US pilots with high scores in the PTO had about a year to a year and a half to acheive their scores, if that. Most Japanese pilots with higher scores began their war in 1937-38. When you average it out, it is the Allied pilots who are the higher scorers by far, even if you allow the oftentimes greatly exaggerated Japanese claims. When you correct for overclaimimg, the disaparity becomes even greater. Do the math before you spout that kind of BS in here.

Also, if you are truly unhappy that Japan and her fascist allies did not win the war, then you have problems that will not be solved here. I hope that when you become a little more mature you'll learn to appreciate the sacrifices that were made on your behalf.
In the meantime, maybe you could at least read a book, or two, and attempt to educate yourself on the facts before you come in here and start making wild accusations about Americans and nationalism and whatever.

ElAurens
11-20-2004, 05:33 PM
If anything I find the P39 in V 3.01m to be more twitchy and unstable than in the previous version. Holding a constant turn now requires many, many little rudder inputs to keep the aircraft from departing...

Personally I think it has just become fashionable to make the accusation of dumbed down Allied FMs.

Lots of hypocracy about now a days...

Be sure.

mortoma
11-20-2004, 05:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ElAurens:
If anything I find the P39 in V 3.01m to be _more twitchy and unstable_ than in the previous version. Holding a constant turn now requires many, many little rudder inputs to keep the aircraft from departing...

Personally I think it has just become fashionable to make the accusation of dumbed down Allied FMs.

Lots of hypocracy about now a days...

Be sure. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Who's trying to be fashionable??
I am just reporting that I find the P-39 to be
easier to fly. And as much as I have been flying it, I should know. The changes in the FM are not
subtle either, very noticable. Very easy plane to fly as it is, was a bit harder before.

chris455
11-20-2004, 06:24 PM
It certainly doesn't seem to be the "Iron Dog" that it was reputed to be-
If it was as nimble and pleasant to fly in RL as it is FB, why would it have received such a poor welcome in the USAAF?

TX-WarHawk
11-20-2004, 06:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zyzbot:
And despite obvious trolling. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LoLz http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

VF-152_Rider
11-20-2004, 07:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ElAurens:
If anything I find the P39 in V 3.01m to be _more twitchy and unstable_ than in the previous version. Holding a constant turn now requires many, many little rudder inputs to keep the aircraft from departing...

Personally I think it has just become fashionable to make the accusation of dumbed down Allied FMs.

Lots of hypocracy about now a days...

Be sure. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Who's trying to be fashionable??
I am just reporting that I find the P-39 to be
easier to fly. And as much as I have been flying it, I should know. The changes in the FM are not
subtle either, very noticable. Very easy plane to fly as it is, was a bit harder before. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I have flown the P-39 since IL-2, and in three years this aircraft has changed many times, I don't see your claim, maybe because that's all I really fly..lol

Cheers, Rider...

clint-ruin
11-20-2004, 08:21 PM
Do we really need to have the entire xyz pages worth of "the P-39 was called Iron Dog by rookies turn fighting Oscars in it at altitudes where it really needed that missing 2nd stage in the supercharger" thing all over again and again and again?

Jason Bourne
11-21-2004, 12:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by chris455:
It certainly doesn't seem to be the "Iron Dog" that it was reputed to be-
If it was as nimble and pleasant to fly in RL as it is FB, why would it have received such a poor welcome in the USAAF? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

because if the engine siezed or the prop stopped at the wrong time, you wouldnt be having kids ever again.

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2004, 02:40 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Hello,

The p-39 was a good plane, not a perfect one!
The big problem in the Pacific and in Western Europe is that this plane does not have some compressor for high altitude flight. On the Eastern front the most part of combats did occur under 3000 m (+- 10000 feets) and there it did have qualities, it was fast and the roll rate was very good it could turn like a BF109 but could not climb very well. Because of this lack of compresor it was very very slow over 10000 feets and had no power reserves for maneuvering.
The US and UK pilots where also afraid of is centre position engine and where there is fear there is no will to take the plane to it limits. The spins did also take part in this fear, once again position of the engine is the cause of this.
It is also an aircraft with a tricycle landing gear, that also did not reasure the pilots.

Sensei

HARD_Sarge
11-21-2004, 05:19 AM
Mood of the topic. posted Sat November 20 2004 15:11
Yes but did the vet say whether he was used to flyin the P-51? I could see him being very indifferent if that was the case.
Was there an aircraft switch?

Hi Mjollnir
well if you know anything about how they were trained, the P-39 was a training plane back in the states before the pilots were sent overseas

the 357th FG was trained in it to start and then was set up in P-51 b's and set over seas, as were other units

if you spun the plane, you died, you couldn't get the nose down to recover, and once the plane started to spin, you were pinned in the cockpit and couldn't get out of the door

most pilots liked the door, unless they had to bail out

HARD_Sarge

clint-ruin
11-21-2004, 05:49 AM
Some P-39 reading which might help people out a little, WRT to performance, "iron dog" rep, etc.

http://yarchive.net/mil/p39.html

http://airforce.users.ru/lend-lease/english/articles/golodnikov/

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p39.html

Chuck_Older
11-21-2004, 07:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jason Bourne:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by chris455:
It certainly doesn't seem to be the "Iron Dog" that it was reputed to be-
If it was as nimble and pleasant to fly in RL as it is FB, why would it have received such a poor welcome in the USAAF? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

because if the engine siezed or the prop stopped at the wrong time, you wouldnt be having kids ever again. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not sure that fear was ever substantiated. Like Haddock said, the plane was radical enough to be a worry. When the plane was designed, nobody really knew what form the new modern figher plane would take.

jeroen_R90S
11-21-2004, 08:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p39.html <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

From this link:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The Airacobra remained in Soviet service well after the war was over. When the original US-built armament became unserviceable, it was replaced by the Soviet 20-mm B-20 cannon and the 12.7mm Berezin UBS machine guns. How long the Soviets operated their P-39s after the war was over is not known. However, it does appear that some P-39s ended up with the air force of North Korea. They saw some combat with the North Korean Air Force during the early months of the Korean War in the summer of 1950.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can anyone confirm that last North Korea part? Or have any other sources?
Didn't know that, thx for the link, Clint.

Jeroen

ZG77_Nagual
11-21-2004, 08:26 AM
thanks for posting this Clint - I'm tired of trotting this stuff out every time someone starts complaining about the p39. Fact is it's rep was caused by tactics - and normal bugs early on. diff is this A/C was plunged into combat in the pacific against very well experienced and trained japanese pilots. It was assemble onsite and flown by rookies trained in antiquated combat tactics that favored the enemy - who almost allways had a tactical advantage.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
Some P-39 reading which might help people out a little, WRT to performance, "iron dog" rep, etc.

http://yarchive.net/mil/p39.html

http://airforce.users.ru/lend-lease/english/articles/golodnikov/

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p39.html <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

muHamad-ALi
11-21-2004, 11:39 AM
what thesaurus you use chris?

clint-ruin
11-21-2004, 12:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jeroen_R90S:
Can anyone confirm that last North Korea part? Or have any other sources?
Didn't know that, thx for the link, Clint.

Jeroen <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not sure about the NK part myself, but I know the P-63s remaining in the SU during the Cold War got the NATO codename "Fred". Exactly what the Chinese and North Koreans and Soviets flew during the Korean war remains somewhat controversial from what I've read.

mortoma
11-21-2004, 12:16 PM
I told you folks to keep this thread civil but I was asking too much. I certainly started it in a civil tone, as I always do. I welcomed those that disagreed, as they may be right and I may be judging the P-39 wrongly. All I asked for was a few opinions. I tried to delete this whole thread but unlike most good forums, it wouldn't let me do so. Moderators, can we delete this whole topic???

VMF-214_HaVoK
11-21-2004, 12:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by muHamad-ALi:
The problem is not, in fact, with the p39, but rather, the fact, that _all_ american aircraft are 'generously', or even, over, modeled. If one were to examine the amount of victories of the IJN and IJAAF aces and compare those victory counts to the aces of the USN, one would find that vastly superior pilots and planes were present on the side of the Japanese, despite the American nationalism (that is overwhelmingly present on these forums) and despite the outcome of the war. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Once again you have no idea what you are talking about. Your ridiculous attempts to flame US aircraft with statements such as this are based on nothing but your imagination or lack of skill as a virtual pilot. I assume you get shot down quite abit by US aircraft. This is not because they are overmodeled but because the person flying it is better then you.

Since you started posting here you have had nothing to say based on facts, just silly attempts to get the US planes porked so you might stand a chance.

As of now after the pacth for anyone to say the JAP planes do not compete with US planes are just fooling themselves. The Zero owns the Wildcat, P-400, and P-40 easily if flown by an expierenced pilot.
Then if you want to go later in years you have the KI-84 which clearly outperforms the Corsair and P-51. It even outperforms the Mustang easily above 8000meters.

Now instead of you Ali posting your ridiculous propaganda why dont you start posting some numbers and aircraft specification charts? I can guess why you dont.

The Zero is a monster now and easily outperforms it counterparts until the Corsair steps in. Even then the Corsair only has a climb and speed advantage. You do not find this historically accurate?

ICDP
11-21-2004, 01:37 PM
You shouldn't have even dignified ALI's post with an answer Havok. He is a troll who hates the US aircraft and actually believes the **** he spews is correct.

ICDP
11-21-2004, 01:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
I told you folks to keep this thread civil but I was asking too much. I certainly started it in a civil tone, as I always do. I welcomed those that disagreed, as they may be right and I may be judging the P-39 wrongly. All I asked for was a few opinions. I tried to delete this whole thread but unlike most good forums, it wouldn't let me do so. Moderators, can we delete this whole topic??? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mortoma,

Please leave the thread open, some of the links provided are excellent and shed some light on a littel known fact. The P39D was a great aircraft in the wrong environment, at low-med altitudes it was every bit the equal of the Early Spitfire and the Bf109E. The bad reputation was simply due to the fact that it was initially used inefectively against the IJN/IJA.

Sakai9745
11-21-2004, 01:50 PM
Heya Mort. Are you honestly yanking that stick for all it's worth in the 39? Only ask because we were all caught off guard by the Cobra's nasty tendancies when IL2 first released. Of course, I have no first hand knowledge here because I am not a fan of the P-39, and haven't even flown it once in PF. But I don't often lose control in the Zero because I had a taste of it back in AEP... I figure, somewhere in the back of my head, I must be acknowledging her limitations in the fight.

Ali, I'm no engineer with background in WW2 PTO aircraft, but I cannot concur with the overmodeling of allied aircraft. The basics of the strengths and weaknesses of the planes in the game that I have flow seem to feel right. And as others have stated, it often falls to the skill of the pilot at the stick of the aircraft, and a player who stays within the tactics curve of his/her chosen mount is bound to have a good time. A couple days ago, I had the nasty experience of going up against a Corsair-jock who refused to slow down and turn with my A6M5; there was no catching him, and I fell in flames over and over again. Yet in the next session, I meet another bent-wing driver who tried to stay on my tail, fighting in my arena of performance; now that was fun.

Lav69
11-21-2004, 02:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by muHamad-ALi:
The problem is not, in fact, with the p39, but rather, the fact, that _all_ american aircraft are 'generously', or even, over, modeled. If one were to examine the amount of victories of the IJN and IJAAF aces and compare those victory counts to the aces of the USN, one would find that vastly superior pilots and planes were present on the side of the Japanese, despite the American nationalism (that is overwhelmingly present on these forums) and despite the outcome of the war. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You could not be more wrong. Ever heard of the Marianas Turkey Shoot? This was fact and not a product of nationalism through history or these forums. And just 1 battle where the allies dominated the skies. Initially the Japenese did enjoy success, but once training and experience were gained by the Allies they overwhelmingly dominated the Japanese. Here is a link for proof if you doubt me. You need to read your history a little better before you spout BS.

http://www.airartnw.com/turkeyshoot.htm

Bearcat99
11-21-2004, 05:53 PM
The 3.0 P-39 was very close to the IL2 P-39. The 3.01 P-39 seems like a compromise between the FB 2.04 P-39 and the 3.0 P-39. It is harder to fly now than the 2.04 one but not quite as challenging as the 3.0 one which was very close to the original IL2 1.2 P-39. It is still better than it was in 2.04 though IMO. The 2.04 P-39 was just too easy to fly and very rarely stalled at all. The 3.0 P-39 stalled if you moved the stick back just a bit too far too fast.... the current one is a nice compromise, but I did prefer the 3.0 one.

chris455
11-21-2004, 06:31 PM
I'm with you, Bear.
The original IL2 P-39 had a certain ambience that was, I beleive, a product of it's tempermental nature and difficulty to master.
I wish it would return, especially with these more heavily armored US types.

jeroen_R90S
11-24-2004, 12:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
Not sure about the NK part myself, but I know the P-63s remaining in the SU during the Cold War got the NATO codename "Fred". Exactly what the Chinese and North Koreans and Soviets flew during the Korean war remains somewhat controversial from what I've read. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cool, but now that I think of it quite logical ~why scrap all those perfectly flyable P39/63s just because they're American and when there's still use for them?

Hope some more gets uncovered in the future so we can have IL-2: Forgotten Archives! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Jeroen

Saburo_0
11-24-2004, 01:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mjollnir111675:
What exactly IS a P-39? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not sure about a P-39, but a P-400 is a P-40 with a Zero behind it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Oh here's http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=26310365&m=5671065442
a P-39 thread that atleast tries to use numbers & testing instead of : "It feels ________ to me." "Nu-uh!" "Americans kicked butt!" etc.

Kwiatos
11-24-2004, 01:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ICDP:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
I told you folks to keep this thread civil but I was asking too much. I certainly started it in a civil tone, as I always do. I welcomed those that disagreed, as they may be right and I may be judging the P-39 wrongly. All I asked for was a few opinions. I tried to delete this whole thread but unlike most good forums, it wouldn't let me do so. Moderators, can we delete this whole topic??? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mortoma,

Please leave the thread open, some of the links provided are excellent and shed some light on a littel known fact. The P39D was a great aircraft in the wrong environment, at low-med altitudes it was every bit the equal of the Early Spitfire and the Bf109E. The bad reputation was simply due to the fact that it was initially used inefectively against the IJN/IJA. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In FB/PF P-39 D-2 is even better than BF F-4 because of its superior climb rate and maneovrablility and have not bad speed at low to medium alt. So P-39 D-2 is probably one of the best plane in 1941 year in FB/PF.

clint-ruin
11-24-2004, 03:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jeroen_R90S:
Cool, but now that I think of it quite logical ~why scrap all those perfectly flyable P39/63s just because they're American and when there's still use for them?

Hope some more gets uncovered in the future so we can have IL-2: Forgotten Archives! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Jeroen <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, FB:Post WW2 > Korea would be something I could get into in a big way. As crappy as Strike Fighters / VOW is it's just awesome flying those early jets, even in a pissweak game.

Plus any sim whose main ride is called the ****** (*)is sure to have entertaining box art and community discussions.

* Bundle of sticks.